“He is doing well and is responding to treatment,” Domingo’s spokesperson said in a statement to CNN.
Domingo announced on his Facebook page last week that he had tested positive for the disease. He encouraged his fans to wash their hands and follow the guidelines and regulations that local governments have put in place.
“Together we can fight this virus and stop the current worldwide crisis, so we can hopefully return to our normal daily lives very soon,” Domingo wrote.
The 79-year-old Spanish tenor resigned as general director of the Los Angeles Opera last year, after being accused of sexual harassment.
While Domingo denied all allegations, the Los Angeles Opera’s independent investigation into 10 allegations of sexual harassment by Domingo were found to be credible earlier this month.
Domingo joins a growing list of celebrities that have tested positive for coronavirus, including Idris Elba, Tom Hanks and his wife Rita Wilson, singer-songwriter John Prine, Kevin Durant and Daniel Dae Kim.
Read more unknown and curious design origin stories here.
Even if you’ve never heard of it, Helvetica has been part of your life. This typeface is, very literally, everywhere: computer screens, billboards, buildings, street signs and posters.

Look around you. It’s likely that some manifestation of Helvetica won’t be too far away. Since its launch in 1957, it’s become the go-to type for company logos and transport hubs, making it one of the most widespread designs of all time.

But like every icon, Helvetica divides opinions, and many designers consider it unoriginal, uninspired and unattractive.

So why has it ruled the world for more than 60 years?

The right name

“Helvetica has a complicated history. In fact, it was not called Helvetica until four years after its release,” American designer and design historian Paul Shaw explained over the phone.
It started its life as “Neue Haas Grotesk,” a boringly descriptive moniker which included the name of its maker (the Haas foundry), its design type (neo-grotesque or realist) and the fact that is was new (or “neue” in German).

“The original name sucked,” said Shaw. The name Helvetica, which means “Swiss” in Latin as a homage to its country of origin, was adopted in 1960 to make it easier to sell it abroad.

And so it did: “Helvetica gets its first kick because the Germans come up with a great name and make it available in the two mechanisms of the day, machines and foundry type, so that anybody could buy it.”

Its design wasn’t original: Helvetica was born out of a typeface from 1896 called Standard in the US and Akzidenz-Grotesk in Germany, which had been used as the avant-garde typeface from the 1920s, especially in Switzerland.

“Standard as a name was brilliant, but it also caused problems, because people started saying ‘We’ll just use the standard typeface’ and those who were not designers took that literally to mean whatever we’ve been using for everything else. That’s how Helvetica accidentally slipped through the cracks,” said Shaw.

The right look

Helvetica’s creators, graphic designer Max Miedinger and his boss, Eduard Hoffmann, wanted a neutral and versatile design. It had to be a modern-looking “sans-serif” type, without the extending features at the end of strokes that were common in the print world.

Its lack of personality was not just intentional, but paramount. Legendary designer Massimo Vignelli, who used Helvetica for the New York Subway system, said in Gary Hustwit’s eponymous 2007 documentary: “There are people that think that type should be expressive. They have a different point of view from mine.”
Its mix of features, or lack thereof, happened to be exactly what designers were looking for: “Helvetica showed up at the right place, the right time,” said in an email Ellen Lupton, curator of contemporary design at the Cooper-Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum in New York.
“It provided something that designers wanted: a typeface apparently devoid of personality. In contrast, other popular sans serif typefaces that existed at the time, such as Gill Sans and Futura, have stronger voices and more distinctive geometries. Helvetica met our craving for corporate vanilla,” said Lutpon.

The right brand

Helvetica wasn’t an immediate hit in Europe, although it was available there first.

Famed designer Bob Noorda doesn’t use it for the Milan metro signage, choosing his own version of the Standard typeface instead: “He could have used Helvetica, but he didn’t, and neither did the Dutch for Schiphol airport. Helvetica just didn’t have the cachet it has today,” said Shaw.

But it didn’t take long before it became the standard for advertising and corporate branding in the US: “In 1967 it creeps into the design for the Yankee Stadium,” said Shaw, “And by 1968 it’s everywhere in America — it is the typeface.”

Vignelli chooses it for the American Airlines logo, which will remain untouched until 2013 — one of the most enduring corporate identities of the 20th Century. It ends up — sometimes with minor variations — in countless company logos including those of BMW, Crate&Barrel, Fendi, Jeep, Kawasaki, Knoll, Lufthansa, Mattel, Nestlé, Panasonic, Scotch, Skype, Target, Texaco, Tupperware, and Verizon. NASA paints it on the side of the Space Shuttle. The US government redesigned its tax forms with it.

The classic American Airlines logo design by Massimo Vignelli.

The classic American Airlines logo design by Massimo Vignelli. Credit: Joe Raedle/Getty Images North America/Getty Images

In 1984, Steve Jobs puts it in the Macintosh: “This was a key move. If Apple didn’t use it, Helvetica would have remained a designer’s preference, same as Times New Roman. Instead, it becomes the default sans serif when sans serif fonts are becoming popular among the populous and not just avant-garde designers,” said Shaw.

Finally, in 1989, Vignelli and Noorda adopt it for the New York Subway system signage, moving on from Standard.

The world is conquered: “It’s air, you know. It’s just there. There’s no choice. You have to breathe, so you have to use Helvetica,” says influential German typographer Erik Spiekermann in the documentary “Helvetica.”

The right species

The popularity of Helvetica continues today. It was the system font on the original iPhone, and it remained part of iOS until 2015, when Apple replaced it with its own San Francisco.

It continues to inspire: the font used in this article and the rest of CNN’s website is a close relative of Helvetica called CNN Sans. Microsoft’s knockoff of Helvetica, called Arial, is one of Windows’ most popular system fonts.
In Venice, Arial is replacing Helvetica in some Vaporetto signage, such as the word 'Rialto' here.

In Venice, Arial is replacing Helvetica in some Vaporetto signage, such as the word ‘Rialto’ here. Credit: MARCO BERTORELLO/AFP/AFP/Getty Images

However, it’s not easy to get a kind word on Helvetica from designers: The fact that people didn’t feel passionate about it in retrospect is interesting,” said Shaw, “It’s not a terrible typeface, it’s just heavily overrated.”

According to Shaw, there was not a lot design-wise that made it better than either Standard or Univers, its great rival that was released in the same year.

“I am not a big fan of Helvetica, but I admire its ability to spread and take root worldwide,” said Lupton.

“It is an invasive and drug-resistant species that may never be eradicated. Even designers who don’t often use Helvetica in their own work take pride in the fact that it is such a persistent cultural icon.”

The inquiry, which is still in its early stages and being done in coordination with the Securities and Exchange Commission, has so far included outreach from the FBI to at least one lawmaker, Sen. Richard Burr, seeking information about the trades, according to one of the sources.
Public scrutiny of the lawmakers’ market activity has centered on whether members of Congress sought to profit from the information they obtained in non-public briefings about the virus epidemic.
Burr, the North Carolina Republican who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, has previously said that he relied only on public news reports as he decided to sell between $628,000 and $1.7 million in stocks on February 13. Earlier this month, he asked the Senate Ethics Committee to review the trades given “the assumption many could make in hindsight,” he said at the time.
There’s no indication that any of the sales, including Burr’s, broke any laws or ran afoul of Senate rules. But the sales have come under fire after senators received closed-door briefings about the virus over the past several weeks — before the market began trending downward. It is routine for the FBI and SEC to review stock trades when there is public question about their propriety.
In a statement Sunday to CNN, Alice Fisher, a lawyer for Burr, said that the senator “welcomes a thorough review of the facts in this matter, which will establish that his actions were appropriate.”
“The law is clear that any American — including a Senator — may participate in the stock market based on public information, as Senator Burr did. When this issue arose, Senator Burr immediately asked the Senate Ethics Committee to conduct a complete review, and he will cooperate with that review as well as any other appropriate inquiry,” said Fisher, who led the Justice Department’s criminal division under former President George W. Bush.
Congress passed the Stock Act in 2012, which made it illegal for lawmakers to use inside information for financial benefit.
Under insider trading laws, prosecutors would need to prove the lawmakers traded based on material non-public information they received in violation of a duty to keep it confidential.
Burr’s committee has received periodic briefings on coronavirus as the outbreak has spread, but the committee did not receive briefings on the virus the week of Burr’s stock sales, another source familiar with the matter told CNN earlier this month.
Spokespeople for the Justice Department, the FBI and the SEC declined to comment.
Burr’s sales represent a sizable share of his portfolio of stocks, according to his latest Senate financial disclosure documents filed in May 2019, although exact numbers aren’t possible because lawmakers only report trades as a range of dollar values.
Several other senators from both parties also sold and bought stock ahead of the market downturn that resulted from the coronavirus pandemic, although it’s not clear who else the Justice Department is looking at and no other senator said they have been contacted by law enforcement. Burr is the only lawmaker to have asked for an Ethics Committee review.
GOP Sen. Kelly Loeffler of Georgia and her husband sold 27 stocks valued between $1.275 million and $3.1 million from January 24 through February 14, according to Senate records.
They also purchased three stocks at a value of $450,000-$1 million, including shares in Citrix, a software company that’s gained approximately 15% in value since Loeffler and her husband bought the stock last month.
Loeffler, who was appointed to her seat in December and was sworn in in early January, has denied having any knowledge of the stock sales, saying she uses a third-party financial adviser and did not learn of the trades until later. Loeffler’s husband, Jeffrey Sprecher, is chairman of the New York Stock Exchange.
A Loeffler spokesperson confirmed Loeffler has not been contacted by the FBI and said the senator “has acted in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the law.”
Others who traded relatively smaller amounts or sold fewer stocks than Burr and Loeffler have also faced public scrutiny.
Stock sales were reported last month by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, and Jim Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican. Both Feinstein’s and Inhofe’s offices said the senators had not been contacted by the FBI.
Feinstein herself did not sell any stock, according to Senate records. Her husband sold between $1.5 million and $6 million in stock of Allogene Therapeutics, a biotech company, in January and February. Feinstein said on Twitter earlier this month that she has no involvement in her husband’s financial decisions.
“I have no input into his decisions. My husband in January and February sold shares of a cancer therapy company. This company is unrelated to any work on the coronavirus and the sale was unrelated to the situation,” she tweeted.
Inhofe sold five stocks, worth between $180,000 and $400,000, in January, and another for $50,000-$100,000 in February. But he said in a statement earlier this month that he had no involvement in his investment decisions.
“I am a great friend and admirer of the Queen & the United Kingdom. It was reported that Harry and Meghan, who left the Kingdom, would reside permanently in Canada. Now they have left Canada for the U.S. however, the U.S. will not pay for their security protection. They must pay!” Trump tweeted.
Harry and Meghan to lose their Canadian security

But a Sussex spokesperson said in a statement to CNN on Sunday that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have no plans to ask the US government for security resources. Privately funded security arrangements have been made.
In January, Harry and Meghan announced their decision to step back from royal life and become “financially independent,” sharing their desire to “carve out a progressive new role within this institution” in an Instagram post.
They also said they planned to relocate to Canada on a part-time basis. While there, Canada has assisted the couple with security arrangements. However, those arrangements are set to end on March 31, when they officially bow out as senior royals.
The inquiry, which is still in its early stages and being done in coordination with the Securities and Exchange Commission, has so far included outreach from the FBI to at least one lawmaker, Sen. Richard Burr, seeking information about the trades, according to one of the sources.
Public scrutiny of the lawmakers’ market activity has centered on whether members of Congress sought to profit from the information they obtained in non-public briefings about the virus epidemic.
Burr, the North Carolina Republican who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, has previously said that he relied only on public news reports as he decided to sell between $628,000 and $1.7 million in stocks on February 13. Earlier this month, he asked the Senate Ethics Committee to review the trades given “the assumption many could make in hindsight,” he said at the time.
There’s no indication that any of the sales, including Burr’s, broke any laws or ran afoul of Senate rules. But the sales have come under fire after senators received closed-door briefings about the virus over the past several weeks — before the market began trending downward. It is routine for the FBI and SEC to review stock trades when there is public question about their propriety.
In a statement Sunday to CNN, Alice Fisher, a lawyer for Burr, said that the senator “welcomes a thorough review of the facts in this matter, which will establish that his actions were appropriate.”
“The law is clear that any American — including a Senator — may participate in the stock market based on public information, as Senator Burr did. When this issue arose, Senator Burr immediately asked the Senate Ethics Committee to conduct a complete review, and he will cooperate with that review as well as any other appropriate inquiry,” said Fisher, who led the Justice Department’s criminal division under former President George W. Bush.
Congress passed the Stock Act in 2012, which made it illegal for lawmakers to use inside information for financial benefit.
Under insider trading laws, prosecutors would need to prove the lawmakers traded based on material non-public information they received in violation of a duty to keep it confidential.
Burr’s committee has received periodic briefings on coronavirus as the outbreak has spread, but the committee did not receive briefings on the virus the week of Burr’s stock sales, another source familiar with the matter told CNN earlier this month.
Spokespeople for the Justice Department, the FBI and the SEC declined to comment.
Burr’s sales represent a sizable share of his portfolio of stocks, according to his latest Senate financial disclosure documents filed in May 2019, although exact numbers aren’t possible because lawmakers only report trades as a range of dollar values.
Several other senators from both parties also sold and bought stock ahead of the market downturn that resulted from the coronavirus pandemic, although it’s not clear who else the Justice Department is looking at and no other senator said they have been contacted by law enforcement. Burr is the only lawmaker to have asked for an Ethics Committee review.
GOP Sen. Kelly Loeffler of Georgia and her husband sold 27 stocks valued between $1.275 million and $3.1 million from January 24 through February 14, according to Senate records.
They also purchased three stocks at a value of $450,000-$1 million, including shares in Citrix, a software company that’s gained approximately 15% in value since Loeffler and her husband bought the stock last month.
Loeffler, who was appointed to her seat in December and was sworn in in early January, has denied having any knowledge of the stock sales, saying she uses a third-party financial adviser and did not learn of the trades until later. Loeffler’s husband, Jeffrey Sprecher, is chairman of the New York Stock Exchange.
A Loeffler spokesperson confirmed Loeffler has not been contacted by the FBI and said the senator “has acted in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the law.”
Others who traded relatively smaller amounts or sold fewer stocks than Burr and Loeffler have also faced public scrutiny.
Stock sales were reported last month by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, and Jim Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican. Both Feinstein’s and Inhofe’s offices said the senators had not been contacted by the FBI.
Feinstein herself did not sell any stock, according to Senate records. Her husband sold between $1.5 million and $6 million in stock of Allogene Therapeutics, a biotech company, in January and February. Feinstein said on Twitter earlier this month that she has no involvement in her husband’s financial decisions.
“I have no input into his decisions. My husband in January and February sold shares of a cancer therapy company. This company is unrelated to any work on the coronavirus and the sale was unrelated to the situation,” she tweeted.
Inhofe sold five stocks, worth between $180,000 and $400,000, in January, and another for $50,000-$100,000 in February. But he said in a statement earlier this month that he had no involvement in his investment decisions.
“I am a great friend and admirer of the Queen & the United Kingdom. It was reported that Harry and Meghan, who left the Kingdom, would reside permanently in Canada. Now they have left Canada for the U.S. however, the U.S. will not pay for their security protection. They must pay!” Trump tweeted.
Harry and Meghan to lose their Canadian security

But a Sussex spokesperson said in a statement to CNN on Sunday that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have no plans to ask the US government for security resources. Privately funded security arrangements have been made.
In January, Harry and Meghan announced their decision to step back from royal life and become “financially independent,” sharing their desire to “carve out a progressive new role within this institution” in an Instagram post.
They also said they planned to relocate to Canada on a part-time basis. While there, Canada has assisted the couple with security arrangements. However, those arrangements are set to end on March 31, when they officially bow out as senior royals.
Gerard Julien/AFP/Getty Images

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued an emergency use authorization for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to treat patients hospitalized with Covid-19.

The drugs — which are used to treat malaria and other conditions — have been called game changers by President Donald Trump.

But thus far, there is little scientific evidence that chloroquine, or its closely-related analogue hydroxychloroquine, are effective in treating Covid-19.

What happened? The authorization came in a letter dated Saturday, but the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) acknowledged the FDA’s action in a Sunday news release. The FDA limited the scope of its authorization to drugs supplied from the Strategic National Stockpile. The HHS announced that two pharmaceutical companies — Bayer and a division of Novartis — had donated the drugs to the stockpile.

Do the drugs work? In its statement, HHS said:

“Anecdotal reports suggest that these drugs may offer some benefit in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
“The safety profile of these drugs has only been studied for FDA approved indications, not COVID-19.”

While there’s limited evidence on the efficacy of chloroquine, or hydroxychloroquine, the FDA said the drugs’ benefits outweighed their risk. In its letter, the FDA encouraged randomized clinical trials that could assess the effectiveness of the drugs. It also noted that the known and potential benefits outweigh the risks.

Who can the drugs be used to treat? The authorization is limited to patients who are currently hospitalized and weigh at least 50kg, or about 110 pounds. Under the emergency use authorization, health care providers must contact their local or state health department to access the drugs.

Moscow imposed a citywide quarantine starting March 30 until further notice for all residents regardless of their age, Mayor Sergey Sobyanin said in a statement. 

“(Since restrictions were imposed) movements in the city decreased by two-thirds, which this is very good,” Sobyanin said. “Although it is obvious that not everyone heard us.”

Residents will only be able to leave their houses to get urgent medical help, go to a nearby grocery store or pharmacy, and to walk their pets in the proximity of 100 meters (328 feet) from their residence. The exception will be made for essential workers.

City officials will deploy a “smart monitoring” system to enforce these restrictions, Sobyanin said, and the city will develop a special pass system for people to get permission to leave their homes.

Public and private transportation, as well as leaving or entering the city, is still allowed, according to the statement.

Though all eyes are on New Orleans, an equally alarming outbreak is occurring in a smaller city in the northwest of the state. Shreveport, near the border of Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma — a region referred to locally as Ark-La-Tex (sorry, Oklahoma) — has about 200,000 people and sits across the Red River from Bossier City, with its population of 70,000. And right now, it is in the first stages of its own unique Covid-19 nightmare.
In recent days, the cases from these sister cities, which are in Caddo and Bossier parishes, have risen 30 or a 40 a day. As of March 29, the total for the two parishes sits at 275 overall, including five deaths. Incredibly, just a week ago, there were just 21 cases. Stated simply, this has the makings of serious trouble.
US coronavirus cases top 137,000 as Trump extends social distancing guidelines until April 30

On the upbeat side, however, Dr. Puja Nambiar, an infectious disease specialist at the LSU Health Shreveport Medical School, told me that Shreveport experts have been able to work closely with the team at the Ochsner Health in New Orleans, adopting protocols and surge planning developed by experts a week ahead of the epidemic. Hopefully, that will help stem the tide.
No one is exactly certain why Shreveport has been hit. Though travel from New Orleans certainly is a possibility, it’s a good five-hour drive to the Big Easy. Rather, some think that the Shreveport Mardi Gras, a several-day affair that usually draws between 250,000 and 400,000 participants annually might be the source, just as some think Mardi Gras may have contributed to kindling the outbreak in New Orleans. Some New Orleans infectious disease experts, however, think this theory overlooks an equally plausible explanation.
Rather than the partying crowds who keep a very unsafe social distance on the streets of New Orleans, Dr. Dahlene Fusco, an infectious disease professor at Tulane University, told me that many people leave the city during Mardi Gras to escape the insanity — then return when the dust settles.
Perhaps these people are bringing the infection in from their travels to New York and California. Though the answer is critical, Fusco said only systematic study that may take months will clarify the reason for Louisiana’s sudden nearly overwhelming epidemic.
Coronavirus preys on what terrifies us: dying alone

Coronavirus preys on what terrifies us: dying alone

The Shreveport Mardi Gras is spread across several weekends, ending on February 25 this year. It, too, is noisy and festive and every bit as deliberately chaotic as its southern counterpart.
But there likely is a difference in who chooses to go there. A lot of “revelers” selecting New Orleans are from far away — it is a destination, even a bucket list item, owing to its fame, the sense of abandon and possibility that shadows the event, the food and drink in the French Quarter, as well as big city activities — art museums, professional sports, unique and gorgeous architecture.
Shreveport, on the other hand, is a trim, proud river town that has had its historic highs and lows. A century ago, it was a hub for Standard Oil; now there are various industries, some colleges, a massive casino and river boats. Few out-of-towners go there for the night life or the art or the sense of drama.
Shreveport’s Mardi Gras pulls in a local, small-town type of reveler from the million or so people in the towns that comprise the Ark-La-Tex region. One report on the economic impact of the Shreveport Mardi Gras noted that about a third of visitors were from outside the area.
Which should worry the Trump administration as they plan for any semi-roll back of social distancing. Their assumption is simple — some places don’t have the virus.
The stimulus bill includes a tax break for the 1%

The stimulus bill includes a tax break for the 1%

Right now the roll call of places free of Covid-19 seems like a very short list. Rather, it would be more correct to say that some places haven’t diagnosed the virus. We don’t simply know if virus is there or not. But it probably is.
According to the Covid Tracking Project, as of March 29, Louisiana had done at least 25,000 tests in a state with more than 4.6 million people. Most disturbingly, about 500 of the 3,540 Covid-19 cases have been diagnosed in areas beyond the New Orleans to Baton Rouge axis.
Plus, there is a place like Longview, Texas, about an hour west of Shreveport. Currently, there is no information about how many people from Longview’s Gregg County (four cases) and nearby Smith County (30 cases) traveled to Shreveport for the Mardi Gras. But we do know that these areas are extremely worried about Covid-19 cases in their area. For them — correctly — any evidence of community transmission is a signal that containment efforts must be organized.
And local officials know the need to test.
This many infections in a midsize city like Shreveport and the first pulse of infection in nearby towns argues strongly against the president’s plan hope to open some areas by Easter and more strongly against the White House’s coronavirus task force coordinator
Dr. Deborah Birx’s statement that “almost 40 percent of the country (has]) extraordinarily low numbers and they are testing.” Low compared to New York and New Orleans — sure. But safe enough to signal the all clear? Not even faintly true.
The Covid-19 epidemic in the United States has moved from “Oh, it’s just a nursing home” in Washington state to “Oh, it’s New York City, that place is a total mess” to “Oh, it’s New Orleans what did you expect, they always have problems” to the current face of the outbreak: Shreveport, Louisiana, Longview, Texas, and countless other towns and small cities that have evidence of infection, little testing, lots of concern and countless citizens who only want help so that they can do the right thing.

CNN’s Jeremy Diamond presses President Donald Trump after he denied instructing Vice President Mike Pence to not call governors he felt were being unappreciative of federal assistance during the coronavirus crisis, despite video evidence to the contrary.